Wednesday, March 19, 2008

Besides inhuman living standards and 2 million immigrants look at Bush's Iraq success from a morticians eyes!

What Bush doesn't want you to hear about his created Hell for Iraqi civilians! First "Despite claims that the security situation has improved in recent months, the human rights situation is disastrous," Amnesty International says in its report, titled "Carnage and Despair: Iraq Five Years On." In a summary of the report, Amnesty writes that "a climate of impunity has prevailed, the economy is in tatters and the refugee crisis" keeps escalating.

The International Committee of the Red Cross, in a report titled "Iraq: No Let-up in the Humanitarian Crisis," writes, "Despite limited improvements in security in some areas, armed violence is still having a disastrous impact. Civilians continue to be killed in the hostilities. "The injured often do not receive adequate medical care. Millions of people have been forced to rely on insufficient supplies of poor-quality water as water and sewage systems suffer from a lack of maintenance and a shortage of engineers."

Both Amnesty and the Red Cross slam the Iraqi government for failing to grapple with the critical needs of their populations. The two reports cite a litany of concerns, including severe widespread poverty, a lack of food and water, and broken families left to scrounge for whatever they can find to get by. Both reports describe a situation that shows no sign of clear improvement. Many women "have been forced to wear Islamic dress or targeted for abduction, rape or killing. That is not to speak of the more than 2 million permanent nomads because of Bush's success that McCain promises to build on.

Almost to prove nothing positive will continue to be accomplished in Iraq and its Government Iraq's main Sunni bloc boycotted a conference Tuesday aimed at reconciling the nation's sectarian groups, a sign of the deep schisms still facing this country. Members of the Sunni Iraqi Accordance Front said they would not participate in the conference until Shiite lawmakers address their political demands. They say Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, a Shiite, has failed to release detainees not charged with specific crimes, has not disbanded Shiite militias and has not sufficiently included Sunni lawmakers in decision-making on security issues."How we can attend a reconciliation meeting?" said Saleem Abdullah, a spokesman for the Sunni front. "There are many points that are still not fulfilled." The U.S. is pressing the Iraqis to achieve national reconciliation, warning that progress toward that goal is necessary to guarantee long-term American support.

There is no progress needed. Just the excuse for us to stay there until the excuse can be found to attack Iran. That is why Iraq was attacked and it will not be avoided. The hell the world sees in Iraq that Bush and McCain call success will be spread through out the entire middle east creating a permanent nomadic culture before the entire world is involved in this success of Bush's.

With suicide bombings and bombings on the increase in Bush's success. Last month up to 700 civilians killed it is time to revisit something I posted 2 years ago! This is a war without front lines against an enemy who wears no uniform. Death can come at any moment, from the blast of a bomb hidden along a road or a mortar round lobbed onto a base. And often, in the angry moments after a comrade's life is ripped away, there is no readily identifiable enemy to confront - only a foreign population in which friend, foe and bystander may seem indistinguishable.

It's a pressure cooker. It's a 24/7 situation in which you're constantly worried about your safety, about danger," said Matthew Friedman, executive director of the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs' National Center for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. It isn't just our troops that have to worry about it. Iraqis have much more to fear from their own and suffer from PTSD also!.

To understand just how brutal the war in Iraq has become, spend a day at work with Sheik Jamal al-Sudani. A Baghdad mortician, he travels to the holy city of Najaf every Friday to bury the capital's unclaimed and unknown dead--the scores of bodies that turn up every day, bearing no identifying characteristics save the method by which they were murdered.

On a typical trip to the Wadi al-Salaam cemetery Sheik Jamal and a small band of volunteers unload the grim cargo they have brought 100 miles from the Iraqi capital in an old flatbed truck. Sheathed in powder-blue body bags are the remains of 72 men, many of them bearing signs of terrible torture.
Holes in the skull made by power drills, mutilated genitals, burns. They are the signature of the shadowy Shi'ite groups that have been kidnapping and murdering hundreds of men and boys, most of them Sunnis, in a campaign that has terrorized Baghdad's neighborhoods. and of course there's Mass graves throughout the country!

On any given Friday, Sheik Jamal inters Iraqis killed by roadside bombs ("I can tell how close they were to the blast from the extent of burning and depth of the shrapnel wounds"), execution ("Their hands are usually tied behind their back, and they've been shot in the head"), garroting and beheading.
He buries victims of U.S. air strikes, some of whose bodies have been fused together by the heat of the explosion "so you can't tell which limb belongs to which head." Every now and again, he will get a body bag with charred-black body parts, dismembered by massive explosions. Those are the remains of suicide bombers. "When you explode a bomb strapped to your chest," he says, "it tears up your body in a particular way."

Death comes to Iraq now in many new and terrible forms. Though there is outrage among many Iraqis about the alleged massacre in Haditha last November, the violence on Iraq's streets is so unrelentingly horrific that even the worst atrocities have lost their power to shock. Few Iraqis even know how many people have died by the bullets and bombs.
Definitive statistics are impossible to find in a country where the most violent provinces are out of bounds for journalists and human-rights workers, and where the state infrastructure--hospitals, morgues, police stations--is not up to the task of caring for the living, never mind counting the dead.

According to the Iraq Body Count project, the most frequently cited source, up to one million Iraqi civilians have been killed since May 1, 2003, when President George W. Bush announced that "major combat operations" had ended. More than 4 in 10 of those deaths are attributable to U.S. forces.

Bush has freed no one! He has imprisoned millions in his created living Hell not to speak of the more than 2 million permanent nomadic refugees and general substandard human conditions and Bush and McCain promise to be there permanently and spread it throughout the entire middle east. We need Obama and must get out of there but nothing will change for those poor people! The idiot still calls this success, says we are drawing down troops which is another lie, and that we must stay there. Yeah until he attacks Iran!

James Joiner
Gardner, Ma
www.anaveragepatriot.com

22 comments:

Dave Dubya said...

Only the Bushies and the brainwashed can call five years of horrible failure a "success", while death, torture and the plight of millions of refugees are swept aside and ignored.

If this country were to suffer as much as Iraq, people would be wailing, "What have we done to deserve this?"

Like the song says, "When will they ever learn?"

an average patriot said...

Dave
I just caught Bush, Cheney, and Mccain saying this hell is successful and we must stay the course. It is sick but some believe that crap. He has to stay the course until he can attack Iran as was the original plan and spread Iraq's hell throughout the middle east, before it encompasses the world. That to Bush is success!

Weaseldog said...

Another great post James.

I can't think of much to say except, "Me Too!"

Karen said...

Today's anniversary is a sad, sad, day.

But, *HOPE* is in the air.

an average patriot said...

Thanks weaseldog. Bush has been bragging how great it is all day. Sadly many believe it. Nothing wil change. This is just starting.
On another note I was just looking for your E and I couldn't find it. The video Robert has on the end of his post is one of my favorites. Take care!

an average patriot said...

Karen it is a sad day!
It was obvious from inception that everything was a lie and attacking Iraq was a forgone conclusion.
Breaking America and attacking Iran were only two of the original goals and they will both happen. This like it or not is just beginning and will have to be fought period now.
Advocates of this still just developing nightmare say it doesn’t matter if the attack was a mistake at this point. I beg to differ it does.
McCain wants to compound his original mistake. Staying there will do nothing but ensure we are there when an excuse to attack Iran is found.
Polishifter just pointed out that McCain said in Israel that he wants Jerusalem to be Israel’s Capital.
I told you they do not want peace only their way. Divide and Conquer once again. The entire world has to be embroiled and they will be before Bush can fight his new world order forever war abd their will be no avoiding it.
One of my sons is over there flying support for about 5 more weeks and the one in EOD arrives any day.
I can only say and ask, what a future and what is their future and ours for that matter?
I have been hearing Bush, McCain, and Cheney bragging all day how great things are there while we hear the truth and tyhat idiot Cheney is fishing inj the gulf somewhere. AAARRRGGGHHH! It is a sad sad day!

Brother Tim said...

The ONLY solution is TOTAL and UNCONDITIONAL withdrawal. Water seeks it's own level. The Iraqis WILL come together once we leave. It may not be the government WE want them to have, but it WILL be more peaceful and stable than it is now.

Saddam was a nasty guy, but he kept the peace, kept the economy going (despite all the sanctions), and he held the infrastructure together (electricity, potable water, roads, etc, etc,).

As for the people he killed; he considered them 'bad guys', just like we consider all the insurgents (Iraqi patriots) that we so brutally murder. Combining the first Gulf War with this one, we have killed 100 times more Iraqis than Saddam did. So, taking an objective viewpoint, who is the most barbaric b*stard? George W Bush or Saddam Hussein?

The 20% or so of this country that backs Bush, do not believe he is right; they are just a bunch of greedy *ssholes that are making money off his 'forever war'.

May God have mercy on us, Jim.

an average patriot said...

I agree with you about Saddam of course but those people do not want unity. They will kill eachother as soon as they are alone. They can't even stand eachother only their own form of Islam and practiced asthey see fit.
There will be no peace in Iraq or anywhere else in the middle east. Sadly i think soon you can include te entire world in that.

Larry said...

What do you think about this Jim:


How Americans Have Been Misled about World War II

By Robert Higgs

"Lewrockwell" --- Whereas historians obsessively trace every event's causal lineage further and further into the past, nonhistorians tend toward the opposite extreme: they assume in effect that the world began immediately before the event they have in mind. I call this unfortunate tendency "truncating the antecedents." Among the general public, it has given rise to mistaken interpretations of historical causation in cases too numerous to mention, and mistakes of this sort continue to occur frequently, in part because politicians and other conniving parties have an interest in propagating them.

I was recently struck by this tendency while reading comments at a group blog associated with the History News Network. A commentator there had mentioned that the blame for World War II is not as cut and dried as Americans typically assume it to be, and hence some revisionism is long overdue. In response, another discussant, whose previous contributions to the blog show that he is an intelligent man, expressed bafflement: "Yes, obviously some revisionism regarding the 'great allied leaders' of WWII is called for. But an attempt to be revisionist about the justness of a war where U.S. territory is attacked by one opponent and war is declared on the U.S. by the other opponent is sort of like justifying the War on Iraq on the basis of mythical WMD."

Like Americans in general, this man takes the Japanese attack at Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, and the German declaration of war on December 11, 1941, as dispositive evidence that Japan and Germany started the war that ensued between these nations and the United States, and therefore he concludes that they should be held responsible for it. In a later post, he persists in this interpretation by saying: "Nation X attacks Nation Y. One or the other is right. Either Nation Y is a victim or the attack was a 'justified pre-emptive attack.' Yes, the response may be disproportionate, etc., but those really aren't reasons to declare Nation Y 'wrong.' Or the two 'equally wrong.'" This view represents a classic case of truncating the antecedents.

Many people are misled by formalities. They assume, for example, that the United States went to war against Germany and Japan only after its declarations of war against these nations in December 1941. In truth, the United States had been at war for a long time before making these declarations. Its warmaking took a variety of forms. For example, the U.S. navy conducted "shoot [Germans] on sight" convoys, which might include British ships, in the North Atlantic along the greater part the shipping route from the United States to Great Britain, even though German U-boats had orders to refrain (and did refrain) from initiating attacks on American shipping. The United States and Great Britain entered into arrangements to pool intelligence, combine weapons development, test military equipment jointly, and undertake other forms of war-related cooperation. The U.S. military actively cooperated with the British military in combat operations against the Germans, for example, by alerting the British navy of aerial or marine sightings of German submarines, which the British then attacked. The U.S. government undertook in countless ways to provide military and other supplies and assistance to the British, the French, and the Soviets, who were fighting the Germans. The U.S. government provided military and other supplies and assistance, including warplanes and pilots, to the Chinese, who were at war with Japan. The U.S. military actively engaged in planning with the British, the British Commonwealth countries, and the Dutch East Indies for future combined combat operations against Japan. Most important, the U.S. government engaged in a series of increasingly stringent economic warfare measures that pushed the Japanese into a predicament that U.S. authorities well understood would probably provoke them to attack U.S. territories and forces in the Pacific region in a quest to secure essential raw materials that the Americans, British, and Dutch (government in exile) had embargoed.

Consider these summary statements by George Victor, by no means a Roosevelt basher, in his recently published, well-documented book The Pearl Harbor Myth: Rethinking the Unthinkable (Dulles, Va.: Potomac Books, 2007).

Roosevelt had already led the United States into war with Germany in the spring of 1941 – into a shooting war on a small scale. From then on, he gradually increased U.S. military participation. Japan's attack on December 7 enabled him to increase it further and to obtain a war declaration. Pearl Harbor is more fully accounted for as the end of a long chain of events, with the U.S. contribution reflecting a strategy formulated after France fell. . . . In the eyes of Roosevelt and his advisers, the measures taken early in 1941 justified a German declaration of war on the United State – a declaration that did not come, to their disappointment. . . . Roosevelt told his ambassador to France, William Bullitt, that U.S. entry into war against Germany was certain but must wait for an "incident," which he was "confident that the Germans would give us." . . . Establishing a record in which the enemy fired the first shot was a theme that ran through Roosevelt's tactics. . . . He seems [eventually] to have concluded – correctly as it turned out – that Japan would be easier to provoke into a major attack on the Unites States than Germany would be. (pp. 179–80, 184, 185, emphasis added)

The claim that Japan attacked the United States without provocation was . . . typical rhetoric. It worked because the public did not know that the administration had expected Japan to respond with war to anti-Japanese measures it had taken in July 1941. . . . Expecting to lose a war with the United States – and lose it disastrously – Japan's leaders had tried with growing desperation to negotiate. On this point, most historians have long agreed. Meanwhile, evidence has come out that Roosevelt and Hull persistently refused to negotiate. . . . Japan . . . offered compromises and concessions, which the United States countered with increasing demands. . . . It was after learning of Japan's decision to go to war with the United States if the talks "break down" that Roosevelt decided to break them off. . . . According to Attorney General Francis Biddle, Roosevelt said he hoped for an "incident" in the Pacific to bring the United States into the European war. (pp. 15, 202, 240)

These facts and numerous others that point in the same direction are for the most part anything but new; many of them have been available to the public since the 1940s. As early as 1953, anyone might have read a collection of heavily documented essays on various aspects of U.S. foreign policy in the late 1930s and early 1940s that showed the various ways in which the U.S. government bore responsibility for the country's eventual engagement in World War II – showed, in short, that the Roosevelt administration wanted to get the country into the war and worked craftily along various avenues to ensure that, sooner or later, it would get in, preferably in a way that would unite public opinion behind the war by making the United States appear to have been the victim of an aggressor's unprovoked attack. (See Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace: A Critical Examination of the Foreign Policy of Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Its Aftermath, edited by Harry Elmer Barnes [Caldwell, Id.: Caxton Printers, 1953].) As Secretary of War Henry Stimson testified after the war, "we needed the Japanese to commit the first overt act" (qtd. in Victor, Pearl Harbor Myth, p. 105).

At present, however, sixty-seven or more years after these events, probably not one American in 1,000 – nay, not one in 10,000 – has an inkling of any of this history. So effective has been the pro-Roosevelt, pro-American, pro-World War II faction that in this country it has utterly dominated teaching and popular writing about U.S. engagement in the "Good War." Only a few years ago, when an essay of mine was included in a collection being considered for publication by the University of Chicago Press, the press's expert outside reader expressed shock that I had mentioned in passing Roosevelt's pre-Pearl Harbor maneuvers to bring the country into the war, and he declared that crackpot statements of this sort would discredit the entire volume. (In deference to the editor and to discourage the volume's rejection by the press, I removed the single obnoxious sentence, which was not central to my purposes in the essay in any event, and eventually the book was published, notwithstanding this "expert's" negative appraisal of my own contributions to it.)

Observations such the foregoing ones tend to elicit angry accusations of "Holocaust denial" and "moral equivalence," among many others. For the record, then, let me avow that I do not deny the Holocaust, nor do I regard the Roosevelt administration as morally equivalent to Hitler's regime. While I am making my innocence plain, let me also avow that I do not regard the Roosevelt administration as morally equivalent to Stalin's regime. This latter comparison comes up surprisingly seldom, however, given that the two regimes were close allies in the war, and, most important, that the major outcome of the war was to leave Stalin and his puppet regimes astride the greater part of the European continent in an area that stretches from the Urals to Bohemia and from Estonia to Azerbaijan. In short, if anyone deserves to be recognized as the war's "winner," that person is Stalin. Somehow this fact has never seemed to me to fit comfortably into a characterization of this horrible conflict as the "Good War." Perhaps I'm just unduly squeamish.

The fate of the European Jews also requires mention, inasmuch as after the war many people professed to believe that saving the Jews was the war's prime justification. Aside from the fact that none of the Allied leaders held that view – Roosevelt himself was a genteel anti-Semite of the sort typical in his time, place, and class – the undeniable truth is that the Jews were not saved: approximately 80 percent of them had perished by the end of the war. Little wonder, too, because U.S. and British war plans did not give high priority to saving them; as a rule, those plans completely disregarded the urgent need to rescue the surviving Jews.

Few Americans have ever entertained the idea that their country ought not to have entered World War II. They persist in believing that they – the ordinary people of the country, as distinct from its political leaders and their foreign legionnaires – were genuinely threatened by the Japanese and the Germans and therefore that the war "had to be fought." Even George Victor, from whose honest and useful book The Pearl Harbor Myth I quoted earlier, has brought himself to believe that Roosevelt had excellent motives for his persistent provocation of Germany and Japan. Thus, he writes: "As Germany began to prepare for conquest, genocide, and destruction of civilization, the leader of only one major nation saw what was coming and made plans to stop it. As a result of Roosevelt's leadership, a planned sequence of events carried out in the Atlantic and more decisively in the Pacific brought the United States into one of the world's greatest cataclysms. The American contribution helped turn the war's tide and saved the world from a destructive tyranny unparalleled in modern history" (p. 16).

Unparalleled? What about Stalin's tyranny or Mao's? Regardless of one's answer to this question, however, another question remains – whether Nazi Germany, as evil as it certainly was, had the ability to defeat the United States, much less to "destroy civilization." Americans love to speculate about German acquisition of atomic weapons, intercontinental ballistic missiles, and other military capabilities the Nazis, in fact, never came close to acquiring. As things actually stood, Germany lacked the capability to invade and conquer even Great Britain. Conquering the United States, thousands of miles across the Atlantic, was realistically inconceivable. Whatever else one may take U.S. leaders' motives for war to have been in the early 1940's, national self-preservation could not have been among them, unless they were shockingly ill-advised as to the economic, logistical, and technological constraints on the German war machine. In reality, that machine had its hands more than full in dealing with the Soviets on the eastern front, not to mention the British and others who were pestering it on other fronts.

Thirty-six years ago, Bruce M. Russett's little book No Clear and Present Danger: A Skeptical View of the U.S. Entry into World War II (New York: Harper & Row, 1972) was published. Russett noted at the outset that "[p]articipation in the war against Hitler remains almost wholly sacrosanct, nearly in the realm of theology" (p. 12). In this regard, nothing has changed since 1972. Yet Russett argued forcefully, with logic and evidence, that this orthodoxy rests on shaky grounds. He concluded that World War II "may well have been an unnecessary war that did little for us and that we need not have fought" (p. 20). Nor did he concede that although the war may have been imprudent on instrumental grounds, it was well justified on moral grounds: "it is precisely moral considerations that demand a reexamination of our World War II myths," he insisted (p. 21). Although much has been added to the corpus of World War II scholarship since the publication of Russett's book, this little volume remains unjustly neglected, and its argument deserves serious consideration even now.

Of course, many other great events in American history might be examined as I have suggested U.S. participation in World War II ought to be examined – by taking the relevant antecedents fully into account. For historians, this advice should be unnecessary; if they know anything, they know that history did not begin yesterday. The American people at large, however, remain extremely vulnerable to misleading descriptions of the government's actions, especially its plunges into foreign wars – accounts of which generally disregard many relevant antecedents, particularly those that cast blame on the United States for stirring up enmities abroad. Yet, any honest account of U.S. foreign policy reveals that this country's government has engaged again and again in foreign interventions whose official justifications cannot withstand critical scrutiny. Many of these interventions amounted to little more than armed errand-running for privileged American business interests seeking to beat foreigners into line and, not coincidentally, to line their own pockets. This aspect of U.S. foreign policy famously led General Smedley Butler to declare that war is a racket.

Time, some wit has said, is God's way of keeping everything from happening at once. Taking this idea to heart, we may remind ourselves and others that whenever the U.S. government launches a new war abroad, we would be well advised to look into what happened in that part of the world previously, perhaps over the course of several decades. We may well discover that the locals have legitimate grievances against our government or some of its corporate cronies. Or we may simply discover that the situation is more complicated than it has been made out to be. We know one thing for certain at the outset, however: we cannot rely on the government to tell us the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Unvarnished truth is to our rulers as holy water is to vampires.

Larry said...

Look at this Jim:

The Transition to a Totalitarian World Government
"Mankind at the Turning Point"

By Brent Jessop

"The modern crises are, in fact, man-made, and differ from many of their predecessors in that they can be dealt with." [emphasis in original] - Mankind at the Turning Point, 1974
Mankind at the Turning Point: The Second Report to the Club of Rome [1] (1974) states their desire to create a unified organic (or interdependent) world system. This system is by definition totalitarian, as was discussed in part one of this series. Now that we know were we are headed, the next question is what will the transition look like?

The Club of Rome is a premiere think tank composed of approximately 100 members including leading scientists, philosophers, political advisors and many other characters who lurk in the shadows of power.

Machines of Doom and the End of Humanity

The focus of Mankind at the Turning Point is a computer model that supposedly replicates the major features of the world problematique. According to The Club of Rome, the world problematique is the set of interlocking world problems, such as, over population, food shortages, non-renewable resource depletion, environmental degradation, etc. Not surprisingly, their self serving model, based on exponential inputs, predicts the complete unravelling of society and perhaps the biosphere. Naturally, failure to implement The Club of Rome's solution of a totalitarian world government will result in the potential end of humanity.

From Mankind at the Turning Point:

"Therefore we have concentrated out efforts in this report on a number of vital worldwide issues whose mastery we consider essential for man's survival and for an eventual transition into sustainable material and spiritual development of humanity." [emphasis mine] - XII

"Whether or not to embark on the path of organic growth is a question of mankind's very survival..." [emphasis mine] - 70
The Transition - Creating A New Mankind

The transition to this totalitarian world government will be made by changing the value systems of the entire planet, creating a one world consciousness.

"Today it seems that the basic values, which are ingrained in human societies of all ideologies and religious persuasions, are ultimately responsible for many of our troubles. But if future crises are to be avoided, how then should these values be readjusted?" [emphasis mine] - 11

"An analysis of problems and crises as reported in subsequent chapters indicate that (1) a "horizontal" restructuring of the world system is needed, i.e., a change in relationships among nations and regions and (2) as far as the "vertical" structure of the world system is concerned, drastic changes in the norm stratum - that is, in the value system and the goals of man - are necessary in order to solve energy, food, and other crises, i.e., social changes and changes in individual attitudes are needed if the transition to organic growth is to take place." [emphasis mine] - 54

"The changes in social and individual attitudes which we are recommending require a new kind of education..." - 148

"Development of a practical international framework in which the cooperation essential for the emergence of a new mankind on an organic growth path will become a matter of necessity rather than being left to good will and preference..." [emphasis mine] - 145

"The transition from the present undifferentiated and unbalanced world growth to organic growth will lead to the creation of a new mankind [emphasis mine]. Such a transition would represent a dawn, not a doom, a beginning not the end. Will mankind have the wisdom and will power to evolve a sound strategy to achieve that transition? In view of historical precedents, one might, legitimately, have serious doubts - unless the transition evolves out of necessity. And this is where the current and future crises - in energy, food, materials, and the rest - can become error-detectors, catalysts for change, and as such blessings in disguise. The solutions of these crises will determine on which of the two paths mankind has chosen to travel." [emphasis in original] - 9
The Transition - One World Consciousness

"Regarding individual values and attitudes the following lessons seem to be outstanding for the new global ethic implicit in the preceding requirements:

1) A world consciousness must be developed through which every individual realizes his role as a member of the world community... It must become part of the consciousness of every individual that "the basic unit of human cooperation and hence survival is moving from the national to the global level."

2) A new ethic in the use of material resources must be developed which will result in a style of life compatible with the oncoming age of scarcity... One should be proud of saving and conserving rather than of spending and discarding.

3) An attitude toward nature must be developed based on harmony rather than conquest. Only in this way can man apply in practice what is already accepted in theory - that is, that man is an integral part of nature.

4) If the human species is to survive, man must develop a sense of identification with future generations and be ready to trade benefits to the next generations for the benefits to himself. If each generation aims at maximum good for itself, Homo Sapiens is as good as doomed." [emphasis mine] - 147

"In order to achieve balance between regions in global development a more coherent regional outlook must be developed in various parts of the world so that the "preferable solutions" will be arrived at out of necessity rather than out of good will... we are talking about a regional sense of common destiny that will find its expression through appropriate societal, economic concepts and objectives... Such a regional outlook will create a "critical mass" necessary for the practical implementation of new and innovative ways of functioning in cultural, economic, and agricultural areas, especially on the rural level." [emphasis mine] - 154
The Transition - Global Warming and the New Mankind

This methodology of doom prediction based on complex, "expert" generated, unverifiable computer models was later taken in full stride by the global warming propagandists. Both had the exact same intent, scare people into believing that the world was on the verge of complete collapse and that the only solution is world government. In reality, the global warming myth is an extension of The Club of Rome's activities

From Mankind at the Turning Point:

"Governments and international organizations are currently too preoccupied with military alliances and bloc politics. But this problem is becoming of secondary importance... Therefore, barring suicide, mankind will face the most awesome test in its history: the necessity of a change in the man-nature relationship and the emergence of a new perception of mankind as a living global system." [emphasis mine] - 146

"Precisely because the symptoms of these global crises might become fully visible only toward the end of the century, the time to act is now; when the symptoms become clear the remedy will no longer be possible, as has been shown repeatedly in this report. Future history will not focus on personality and social classes, as has been characteristic of history in the past, but on the use of resources and survival of the human species. The time to affect that history is now." [emphasis mine] - 146
The quote above cannot be emphasized enough. The fear that has been used to unify our national societies is being moved from the Hitler/Saddam Hussein type personalities and the Communist/Capitalist class struggles to global unity based on resource depletion and the survival of the human species.

Furthermore, in 1991, in a book entitled The First Global Revolution: A Report by the Council of The Club of Rome [2] and coauthored by one of the founders of The Club of Rome, Alexander King, they admitted choosing global warming and other threats to unify humanity under a world government.

"In searching for a new enemy to unite us [all of humanity], we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. In their totality and in their interactions, these phenomena constitute a common threat which as the enemy, we fall into the trap about which we have already warned, namely mistaking symptoms for causes. All these dangers are caused by human intervention and it is only through changed attitudes and behaviour that they can be overcome. The real enemy then is humanity itself."

Larry said...

It's coming soon Jim:

Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP): Security and prosperity for whom?
by Andrew Marshall

In March of 2005, the leaders of Canada (Paul Martin), the U.S. (George W. Bush), and Mexico (Vicente Fox) signed an agreement called the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP). The SPP is about securing prosperity for a rich elite, while taking what remaining power the people have, through democratic sovereign institutions, and placing that power in a few hands of unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats whose strings are pulled by global corporations and banks. However, in discussing the SPP, we must first go back a little further than 2005 to the origins from which it arose.

The same group that on their own website admits to being the predominant force in Canada behind NAFTA, the Canadian Council of Chief Executives (CCCE) — Canada’s most powerful interest group made up of the CEOs of the 150 largest corporations in Canada, many of which are subsidiaries of foreign, predominantly American, corporations — in January of 2003, issued a press release announcing the creation of their North American Security and Prosperity Initiative. In this, they proposed five main changes to be undertaken in the North American political-economic landscape: “Reinvent borders, maximize regulatory efficiencies, negotiate a comprehensive resource security pact, reinvigorate the North American defense alliance, and create a new institutional framework.”

Several months later, in November of the same year, the CCCE issued a short document titled, “Paul Martin urged to take the lead in forging a new vision for North American cooperation.” In this document, they stated that, “all of the CCCE’s 150 member CEOs are involved in this ambitious two-year initiative,” in which Thomas D’Aquino, president and CEO of the CCCE, “urged that Mr. Martin champion the idea of a yearly summit of the leaders of Canada, Mexico, and the United States in order to give common economic, social, and security issues the priority they deserve in a continental, hemispheric, and global context.”

Apparently, Martin was listening, because one of the signatories of this letter was none other than a vice chairman of the CCCE and then-CEO of Canfor Corporation, Canada’s largest softwood lumber producer, David L. Emerson. Emerson would go on to be Martin’s Minister of Industry.

When the CCCE’s two-year initiative ended, it formed a new task force, called the “Independent Task Force on the Future of North America” in conjunction with the Mexican Council on Foreign Relations and the U.S.’s most powerful think tank, the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), founded by the Rockefeller and Morgan families in 1921.

This task force released a statement on March 14, 2005 entitled, “Trinational call for a North American economic and security community by 2010.” In the Trinational Call, it was recommended that the North America nations create “a community defined by a common external tariff and an outer security perimeter,” and to “harmonize” the areas of energy, security, education, military, immigration, resources, and the economy.

Nine days after this recommendation was issued, Bush, Martin, and Fox signed the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP), and in the joint statement explained it would, “implement common border security and bioprotection [enhanced surveillance] strategies, enhance critical infrastructure protection, implement a common approach to emergency response, implement improvements in aviation and maritime security, combat transnational threats, enhance intelligence partnerships, promote sectoral collaboration in energy, transportation, financial services, technology, and other areas to facilitate business, [and] reduce the costs of trade.” The SPP agreement oversees the creation of SPP “working groups” in each country, which have a mandate of overseeing “harmonization,” or “integration,” in over 300 policy areas.

Two months later, in May of 2005, the Independent Task Force on the Future of North America released a document titled, “Building a North American Community,” of which Canadian Task Force members included D’Aquino, Wendy Dobson, professor at University of Toronto and former president of the C.D. Howe Institute, Allan Gotlieb,(former Canadian Ambassador to the United States as well as being Chairman of the CCCE), and John Manley, former Liberal deputy prime minister.

The report’s recommendations included initiatives to establish “a common security perimeter by 2010, develop a North American Border Pass [North American ID card] with biometric identifiers, expand NORAD into a multi-service defense command,” share intelligence, develop Mexico’s energy resources, “harmonize” areas of energy, education, military, foreign policy, immigration, health, expand “temporary” migrant worker programs, and adopt a common external tariff.

In 2002, based in Montreal, the North American Forum on Integration (NAFI) was formed, which, according to their website, “aims to address the issues raised by North American integration as well as identify new ideas and strategies to reinforce the North American region,” and hold “NAFI organized conferences which brought together government and academic figures as well as business people.” The first conference was held in Montreal in 2003, the second in 2004 in Mexico, of which was stated on the organization’s website: “About 200 participants and conference speakers took part in the conference, [including] former Energy Minister, Mr. Felipe Calderon,” the current President of Mexico.

NAFI later organized a ‘mock’ North American Parliament, called the Triumvirate, which allows 100 Canadian, American, and Mexican university students “to better understand the North American dynamic” — the first of which took place in the Canadian Senate in May of 2005, hosted by the Triumvirate president and former ambassador Raymond Chrétien, the son of Jean Chrétien. Participating Canadian universities included Carleton, McGill, and yes, Simon Fraser University. The board of directors of NAFI includes Stephen Blank, a member of CFR and Robert Pastor, CFR member and co-chair of the Independent Task Force.

In January of 2006, the Council of the Americas and the North American Business Council issued a report titled, “Findings of the Public/Private Sector Dialogue on the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America,” which called for the establishment of a “North American competitiveness council” to advise governments on the implementation of ‘deep integration.’ The Chairman of the Council of the Americas is former banker David Rockefeller, and top executives from J.P Morgan, Merck & Co., Chevron, McDonald’s, Shell, Citigroup, IBM, Ford, PepsiCo, Microsoft, GE, Pfizer, MetLife, Wal-Mart, Exxon Mobil, Credit Suisse, General Motors, Merrill Lynch, and individuals from the U.S. Department of State.

In March of 2006, a second SPP summit was held, this time with Bush, Fox, and newly elected Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper. The press release (which can be found at spp.gov, “Report to Leaders August 2006”) announced the formation of the North American Competitiveness Council (NACC), which “provides a voice and a formal role for the private sector” whose job is to advise the SPP ministers in their respective governments. Current Canadian SPP ministers are Maxime Bernier (Foreign Affairs), Jim Prentice (Industry) and Stockwell Day (Public Safety, ha!).

The NACC is run out of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and with the Council of the Americas, and is made up of corporate leaders from each of the three countries. In Canada, these corporations include Manulife Financial, Power Corporation of Canada, Ganong Bros. Ltd, Suncor Energy, Canadian National, Linamar Corporation, Bell Canada Enterprises, Home Depot, and the Bank of Nova Scotia. U.S. companies include Campbell Soup, Chevron, Ford, FedEx, GE, GM, Lockheed Martin, Merck, Procter & Gamble, UPS, Wal-Mart, and Whirlpool.

On September 12 to 14, 2006, business and government representatives from the three North American countries met in secret, with no media coverage, at the Banff Springs Hotel and convened the North American Forum. Judicial Watch, a U.S. public watchdog group got declassified government documents through a Freedom of Information Act request and made the documents available on their website. These documents reveal the discussions and membership in the secret meetings. The Canadian co-chair of the meeting was former Alberta premier Peter Lougheed, and Canadian participants included Day, D’Aquino (also a member of the NACC), all NACC corporate representatives, and John Manley. In the released documents, under the forum discussion on “Border Infrastructure and Continental Prosperity,” chaired by John Manley, a startling quote was revealed: “While a vision is appealing, working on the infrastructure might yield more benefit and bring more people on board (‘evolution by stealth’).” What exactly are they evolving by stealth? Oh right, our country.

On the Canadian government’s SPP website, a list of priorities is provided which gives recommendations to be implemented by date, and then tracks their status. Under Aviation Security: “For aviation security purposes, each country has developed, is developing or may develop its own passenger assessment (no-fly) program for use on flights within, to or from that country to ensure that persons who pose a threat to aviation are monitored or denied boarding, within 24 months (June 2007).” On June 18, 2007, Canada instituted our very ‘own’ no-fly list.

On May 8, 2007, The Montreal Gazette reported that “Canada is set to raise its limits on pesticide residues on fruit and vegetables for hundreds of products. The move is part of an effort to harmonize Canadian pesticide rules with those of the United States, which allows higher residue levels for 40 per cent of the pesticides it regulates,” and that “Canadian regulators and their U.S. counterparts have been working to harmonize their pesticide regulations since 1996, as part of the North American Free Trade Agreement. Now the effort is being fast-tracked as an initiative under the Security and Prosperity Partnership.”

The Vancouver Province reported on January 22, 2008, that “B.C. is about to become the first province to use a high-tech driver’s license. For an extra fee, it will enable drivers to cross the border into the U.S. without a passport and still comply with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security concerns,” and that “the enhanced driver’s license or EDL has a radio-frequency identification chip that will broadcast a number linked to a computer database, allowing a border guard to assess data and flag security issues as drivers approach the booth.” Introduced by Gordon Campbell and Stockwell Day, this is the “biometric” card as recommended under the SPP — essentially, a North American ID card.

There is also much discussion of a common currency for North America, often called the “Amero,” much like the euro for the E.U. The Fraser Institute published a paper entitled, “The case for the Amero.” The C.D. Howe Institute followed that with the publication, “From fixing to monetary union: options for North American currency integration.” In May of 2007, as reported by The Globe and Mail, David Dodge, then-governor of the Bank of Canada, said, “North America could one day embrace a euro-style single currency.” The Globe reported in November of 2007 that Stephen Jarislowsky, board member of C.D. Howe, told a parliamentary committee, “Canada should replace its dollar with a North American currency, or peg it to the U.S. greenback.”

The SPP is not about “security” or “prosperity” (except for the very few over the many), but is rather about forming a North American Union. When Vicente Fox recently appeared on The Daily Show, Jon Stewart asked him about NAFTA, of which Fox stated, “NAFTA’s been good. As a matter of fact we should have a new vision, go further, integrating,” and Fox went on to discuss the “solidarity” of the European Union. When asked if he wanted a North American Union, and if it would include Canada, Fox said, “Long term, yes.” On May 16, 2002 Fox spoke at Club 21 in Madrid, and stated, “Eventually, our long-range objective is to establish with the United States, but also with Canada, our other regional partner, an ensemble of connections and institutions similar to those created by the European Union.”

Mussolini has been attributed as once saying, “Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power.” Gandhi once said, “A democrat must be utterly selfless. He must think and dream not in terms of self or party but only of democracy.” So are those behind the SPP listening to, Gandhi or Mussolini?

Brother Tim said...

I don't believe your assessment is right, Jim. Prior to our illegal, immoral, un-Godly invasion, the Sunni and the Shia were co-habitating, inter-marrying, and peacefully co-existing. WE were the ones that took the ballbat to the hornet's nest; and it serves us right, that we are the ones getting stung.

an average patriot said...

Larry
Most do not realize that as is being done as we speak, war was desired by our so called leaders and it had to appear provoked while we provoked it. Just as is being done for years. We needed an excuse to get in and help Britain.
I have always believed and do more so now after watching the Bush idiocy that Pearl Harbor was allowed to happen as 9/11 was. They both served the underhanded needs of the hierarchy and circumvented the better judgment of the people.
What I have been hearing of late from Romney and others that we, Medicaid, Medicare, welfare, social security, etc. are the true enemies of America and watching Cheney laugh and say so what in response to us being against the war reinforces that we do not matter and are in serious trouble.
This election too will be stolen to follow this war mongering underhanded agenda!

an average patriot said...

Larry
As we have discussed again numerous times,the end of days appears to be the aim not the fear. There is a new order needed but not the one being forced on us.
"An analysis of problems and crises as reported in subsequent chapters indicate that (1) a "horizontal" restructuring of the world system is needed, i.e., a change in relationships among nations and regions and (2) as far as the "vertical" structure of the world system is concerned, drastic changes in the norm stratum - that is, in the value system and the goals of man - are necessary in order to solve energy, food, and other crises, i.e., social changes and changes in individual attitudes are needed if the transition to organic growth is to take place." [emphasis mine] - 54
Sadly that is necessary but will not happen. We do not matter. Doing the right thing does not matter. Readjustment does not matter. Survival of all of mankind and the planet does not matter. Merely that portion of mankind deemed worthy and a way will be found to survive in the resultant mess that remains of our planet.
An unlikely scenario is that someone knows there is a planet out there we can get to but after a space w2ar whoever is left will be stuck here so I seriously doubt it!

an average patriot said...

larry
You know The SPP is not about “security” or “prosperity” (except for the very few over the many), but is rather about forming a North American Union.
It is about a one world Government to operate the newly created one world economy. It will all end up in total disaster as there are powerful elements such as Russia and China who want their autonomy and their way.

an average patriot said...

Larry
As you know "it is coming soon" and it is too late to stop now after years of trying to wake people up and being laughed off so this mess of the worlds biggest conspiracy could be followed. Total destruction of the world, the planet, and any order we know, and that is a sad fact!

an average patriot said...

Brother
What you say was right years ago! Certainly not under Saddam! However, I may be wrong but I blame Bush for opening the Pandora's box of one religion rule.
I said years ago that now like it or not the middle east thanks to Bush will explode into Shiite verse Sunni with us and the rest of the world in the middle. This entire mess will not be avoided because all sides think they can win their way militarily.

Weaseldog said...

My 'E'?

Email? It is linked on my profile.

Weaseldog said...

Yeah, I saw Rouse's video when it first appeared.

I subscribed to his videos on YouTube.

an average patriot said...

weaseldog
Okay, his last video was I think his best because he is getting better at special effects. Getting a late start as I just got back from the VA! Take care!

PoliShifter said...

Lessons learned from Vietnam....don't cover the carnage.

Americans have NO IDEA how horrible it is. And how could they when Wrigth is running in a conitnuous loop on the TV...

an average patriot said...

It pisses me off that no matter how bad it is they say it is great but we have to stay there and we do until they find the excuse to attack Iran.
Meanwhile Bush's replacement is in the UK reassuring the PM. I am just preparing to post that!